Sudan Government Supporters Defend President Against Darfur War Crimes

WE, the people, governments and media of the free world, are almost as culpable for the genocide in Darfur as al Bashir and his obscene regime are. How is that possible? Easy. We IGNORED the first genocide, so they felt free to start another. Even today, EVEN in spite of the West's recognition of genocide by this regime in Darfur, our media and leaders in the free world STILL do not acknowledge the first genocide, but continue to refer to it as a "civil war." Is it civil war when government troops enter a village, herd all its population into their own thatched cattle-byres, setting them alight, then burning everything they had: livestock, crops, and the village itself - then onward and upward, for Allah, to the next village? If that doesn't constitute genocide, pray tell, what DOES? And, of course, they took women and children as slaves. There was that, too, and we even HEARD about it on the news. Yet we didn't acknowledge that it was genocide, despite the indisputable - and VAST - proof that it was. In that genocide, starting in the mid-80's, 2.5 MILLION were slaughtered. It went on for two decades. Yet we were never told, by either our governments or our mass media sources. As for injured, displaced and enslaved, I can't offer the figures, but you could probably get them from Amnesty International. It was a major source of information for me about this first genocide. They have rooms full of documentation on the "civil war" in Sudan, REAMS of evidence that prove beyond all possible doubt that it was indisputably a genocide. Darfur is mild, by comparison. That's because the regime wants to kill off blacks, but had a problem in Darfur. The people of the south had been resisting Islam for centuries, but most in Darfur were Muslim. The government had to protect itself from internal criticism by its own northern Arab/Muslims who would disapprove of the slaughter of other Muslims - even if they were black and therefore loathsome. So the regime used the "janjaweed," as their surrogates. In the first genocide, there was no need of surrogates; the military did it directly and quite openly - but of course, Western cameras were kept out, to enable obfuscation by the regime when international sources began to lay charges and accusations. Our leaders knew of it, yet participated in the first genocide - by doing NOTHING. Except, of course, to mislabel it and keep US from hearing about it. Now we have Darfur. The West has acknowledged that it is a genocide, yet still maintain the earlier genocide was NOT genocide, even though it was VASTLY WORSE. We can thank our OWN leaders for Darfur. If we'd acted on the original genocide, we could have easily shut down this odious regime long ago. We didn't. I have been, in my own feeble way (I'm no actress, you see, nor any kind of celebrity, so MY opinions didn't count) advocating for the suffering people of southern Sudan since 1994. While it was difficult to get the information at all, I did fall upon it back then. And while I had no way to access the Internet then, I did all I could to learn about it. When I did get online, I tried to make people aware of a genocide that wasn't as important as the OJ Trial. Nobody listened - or cared. Nor do I have any illusions that anyone will listen to me now. And, quite frankly, most people who "care" today about Darfur would really prefer not to have been bothered to do so, but publicity required them to show their compassion and concern. Most are just jumping on a bandwagon that makes them APPEAR to be humanitarian. The reality is that the compassion and concern is real, but only for a VERY few of them. Now we have Darfur. The Sudan temporarily set its first genocide aside (not entirely, of course), and switched their slaughtering over to Darfur for a while. So...we're now going after the Darfur genocide, i.e., the lesser of the two genocides, by far. And still denying the first one ever happened at all, that those 2.5 million died in a "civil war." Well, it's something, but it doesn't remove one hair of our OWN shame. We, the people, didn't know of that first genocide, but our governments and media certainly did. By calling it a "civil war," they were easily able to deflect public attention from the true reality, and it was done jointly and intentionally by ALL of the free world nations, with the full cooperation of ALL free world major media sources. Black skin still doesn't count for much in this world. Especially if it is indigenous black skin. The stark reality is that the free world knowingly allowed 2.5 million to be killed, then kept the reality of it from the public. A genocide requires global attention and concern; a civil war is "their own business." Handy, wasn't it? If you ever thought words can't kill, you now know otherwise. Of course, the people of the south did all they could to form militias (some of whom adopted the Arabs' bestial ways) to defend themselves. That made it possible for our leaders and media to call it a "civil war." But there are militias trying to defend the Darfurian people, too, yet the world IS acknowleding Darfur as a genocide. If Darfur is so obviously genocide, why do they STILL refer to the first genocide as a civil war? They're STILL trying to keep the truth of that from us. They don't want us to know of the unspeakable, callous neglect shown by the entire free world in that first genocide. We need to learn a bit more about exactly HOW free our countries are, when our leaders can collectively allow genocide to roll on unimpeded and keep it all secret from us. We also need to review - MOST seriously - exactly HOW free our own free press is in the free world, since they actively participated in covering up this genocide, for 20 YEARS! Don't believe me? You haven't done your homework. You can verify all the atrocities of this first genocide at Amnesty International. Though even THEY referred to it as a "civil war," they probably were given no choice by free world leaders, because the atrocities they have on file make the ones in Darfur look like a day at Disneyland. That's all you REALLY need to know; the labels put on the first genocide by everyone, including Amnesty Int'l, fall into shreds in light of the well-reported atrocities actually committed. And from THEM, there is only one possible conclusion: The 20-year pogrom in the south was as much - actually MORE - of a genocide than Darfur is. And we were never told. Now the regime is revving up to start it again. They had made a "peace pact" with the south, which, of course, they never had any intention of keeping. Now, they're about to start it up again. After all, hadn't the world already called it a civil war? So going back to it is probably safer for them now, with the Darfur genocide under so much international fire. The regime knows that the West won't dare call a resumption of the first genocide a genocide - not after all the years they spent covering up that reality. If the first genocide was NOT genocide because the southern non-Muslim populations formed militias to defend themselves, then Darfur is NOT genocide, either - and for exactly the same reason. The first genocide involved two government programs, called "Islamization" and "Arabization." Look them up for yourself. The first was simple - forcing conversions by the sword. Yes, Muslims DO do this - always have. It started from the day Muhammad himself first converted someone by the sword. From then, till now, the phrase in the Quran, "there shall be no compulsion in religion" became moot. Overwritten. Por nada. All Muslims know this. But they don't want US to know, which is why they killed and protested, forcing the Pope to make an apology. Remember that? They protested that the Pope spoke the truth, you see. Arabization - ah, that's the fun one. It's where troops from the regime can get their jollies. The goal is to dilute black genes by mixing them with good, clean, righteous Arab genes - through rape. And you thought rape was only being used as a tool of war in Darfur? You haven't begun to do your homework. I'VE known of it since '94. Do you even recognize the name Hassan al Turabi? If not, it's because you haven't done your homework. He orchestrated the FIRST genocide. Though he and al Bashir had a major falling-out, Bashir is continuing the policies originated by Turabi. BOTH are equally guilty of genocide. But nobody's charging Turabi, who is FAR more malevolent than Bashir (and, I'll add, a great friend of, even a guru for, that well-loved character, Osama bin Laden) - because to do so would require acknowledging the original genocide, you see? The coverup rolls on. Despite ALL the claimed reasons for this "conflict" in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan (oil, uranium, riparian rights to the Nile headwaters), the most important reason for these genocides, in the minds of this regime, is to rid the Sudan of black skin. So we let it go on. After all, how much GENUINE regard do we of the west have for indigenous blacks? The free world allowed a horrific genocide, on the grandest of scales, to roll on unimpeded, and even successfully kept it hidden from the public for almost twenty years. And because we did ignore it, Sudan was emboldened to launch a second genocide in Darfur. To our everlasting shame. I've done MY homework. It's time you did yours. Or do you LIKE the fact that major international news stories have been kept from you, for DECADES, intentionally and JOINTLY, by ALL governments and major media in the free world? Do you LIKE knowing your freedom is far less than you'd thought? Or that the "free press" isn't free? Or objective? Nor is this gross neglect the fault of one of our political parties or the other; BOTH are equally guilty of the coverup of the original genocide. Dream on, suckers. It's your own liberty that you're dreaming away. Do I sound irate? Funny you might notice. ALL those years of genocide! All those millions of people, slaughtered horribly, that WE might have prevented! You BET I'm roiling mad.